England v Australia, 1st Test, Trent Bridge, 10-14 July, 2013 (II)

Stumps. Something tells me this game has a few turns in it yet.

A good day for England in the end.

Great knock by Bell. One of his best.

This series is only three days old and already it has given us so much. I won't even attempt to predict what will happen on Day 4.

The day definitely belongs to Bell - he's single-handedly taking the game away from Australia.

I say single-handedly because I can't give any credit to Broad. He's a cheat. What he did was cheating. I'm a walker through and through and have copped plenty of flak for it. But hey, I'd rather be a walker than a cheat.

England dug in well to only lose four wickets all day. Kudos to the Bellmeister General for one of his best knocks when his team needed it (although he still retreated further and further into his shell and left it to Prior and Broad to keep the game moving forward).

Hopefully he can get his year started with this innings.

Broad was a typical mix of good shots, terrible shots, responsible play, irresponsible play and wild strokes of luck. But we'll take it.

Obviously he wasn't going to walk. If all three stumps were out of the ground he'd still review it. Appalling work from umpire Dar, but that's what the DRS was brought in to deal with: the obviously wrong decision.

If Australia gambled and wasted their reviews on speculative appeals, that's their hard luck. The Bairstow review wouldn't have hit a fourth stump down the leg side.

261 lead is handy, but the pitch is all but dead for the seamers now. Might not be easy to bat fluently on, but you can grind your way through a whole day for just the loss of a few wickets - there's plenty of time for Australia to eke their way towards this total.

300+ would be nice...

Hass wrote:This series is only three days old and already it has given us so much. I won't even attempt to predict what will happen on Day 4.

The day definitely belongs to Bell - he's single-handedly taking the game away from Australia.

I say single-handedly because I can't give any credit to Broad. He's a cheat. What he did was cheating. I'm a walker through and through and have copped plenty of flak for it. But hey, I'd rather be a walker than a cheat.

So any batsman who doesn't walk is a cheat?

Hass wrote:
I say single-handedly because I can't give any credit to Broad. He's a cheat. What he did was cheating. I'm a walker through and through and have copped plenty of flak for it. But hey, I'd rather be a walker than a cheat.

I remember Andrew Symonds coming in to bat at the MCG in 2006/7 with Australia teetering at 80/5 and immediately hitting the cover off one to the keeper. Everyone in the ground knew it was out except the umpire.

He didn't walk, of course. Went on to score 150 and the gig was up for England.

Pretty sure every Aussie in the crowd rose to applaud his hundred.

I think the walk/don't walk debate makes hypocrites of most of us, depending on whether our teams were the beneficiaries or on the rough end of the decision.

For the record. Australia wasted their reviews and only have themselves to blame. Doesn't change the fact Broad is a cheat. The same way Brad Haddin is a cheat - I remember his effort against New Zealand four years ago. I've found it very hard to have any respect for him since.

doremi wrote:The DRS thing. It was meant to prevent these.

It would've - if Clarke hadn't already pissed away all his reviews on a "hunch".

Henry wrote:That was actually a brilliant bit of acting from Broad.

He's been honing his skills acting like a Test bowler for years.

I think the most hypocritical thing is how so many people in cricket are happy to condemn fielders who claim catches that fall short, but will excuse batsmen who nick it and don't walk.

Dello wrote:

Henry wrote:That was actually a brilliant bit of acting from Broad.

He's been honing his skills acting like a Test bowler for years.

:very good:

Hass wrote:I think the most hypocritical thing is how so many people in cricket are happy to condemn fielders who claim catches that fall short, but will excuse batsmen who nick it and don't walk.

Maybe it's something to do with the fact that the fielding side immediately has further chances?

But obviously Hass, you have a point.

The screaming divide, though, has to be between many people's reactions when it goes their (team's) way, and when it goes against them (their team).

Especially in already overheated circumstances, in tense encounters of a classic kind.

Hass wrote:I think the most hypocritical thing is how so many people in cricket are happy to condemn fielders who claim catches that fall short, but will excuse batsmen who nick it and don't walk.

Or bowlers that appeal for edges that are clearly not out?

Things like this leave a real bad aftertaste, but saying Broad was a cheater is really harsh and unfair.

And I don't even like Broad.

But you've got to agree he's a very, very naughty boy.

doremi wrote:Things like this leave a real bad aftertaste, but saying Broad was a cheater is really harsh and unfair.

And I don't even like Broad.

No-one likes Broad.

Harsh.

Dello wrote:

doremi wrote:Things like this leave a real bad aftertaste, but saying Broad was a cheater is really harsh and unfair.

And I don't even like Broad.

No-one likes Broad.

Not even Snape. The professor that is.

Neil D wrote:Lets not sook about umpiring decisions, it's done and dusted now.

Set up nicely for a counter-attacking KP hundred.

I said this yesterday when England fans were sooking about the Agar and Trott decisions. I say it again now the Aussies are whining.

doremi wrote:Things like this leave a real bad aftertaste, but saying Broad was a cheater is really harsh and unfair.

And I don't even like Broad.

This is what I really take issue with. It's one thing to say cheating is part of the game and that we have to live with it. But I don't see how anyone can deny that Broad cheated.

I brought up the fielding analogy because a fielder who claims a catch that bounces three inches in front of him immediately gets branded a cheat. Broad does something just as blatant and people try to deny it's cheating.

It's one thing to justify cheating or to play it down, but it's another thing altogether to deny it when it happens.

Yeah, I agree with you on that. There really is not much difference between what Broad did today and what Ramdin did a few weeks ago, but one will go unsanctioned because it has an official stamp of approval for being "not out".

I also remember Clarke getting out to Pietersen off the last ball of the day in Adelaide in the last series.

Again, smacked the cover off the ball - a huge inside edge onto his thigh and up into short leg's hands.

The umpire didn't give it. Clarke didn't walk. England had to use a review to get the obvious wicket.

He justified it after the day's play on Twitter: "Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/8183479/The-Ashes-2010-Australias-Michael-Clarke-apologises-for-not-walking-after-dismissal-by-Englands-Kevin-Pietersen.html

I guess StuBro was probably just really disappointed today.

Hass wrote:

doremi wrote:Things like this leave a real bad aftertaste, but saying Broad was a cheater is really harsh and unfair.

And I don't even like Broad.

This is what I really take issue with. It's one thing to say cheating is part of the game and that we have to live with it. But I don't see how anyone can deny that Broad cheated.

I brought up the fielding analogy because a fielder who claims a catch that bounces three inches in front of him immediately gets branded a cheat. Broad does something just as blatant and people try to deny it's cheating.

It's one thing to justify cheating or to play it down, but it's another thing altogether to deny it when it happens.

Once again are there degrees of cheating?

Is it okay not to walk after a thin edge but cheating not to walk after a thick edge?

Dello wrote:I also remember Clarke getting out to Pietersen off the last ball of the day in Adelaide in the last series.

Again, smacked the cover off the ball - a huge inside edge onto his thigh and up into short leg's hands.

The umpire didn't give it. Clarke didn't walk. England had to use a review to get the obvious wicket.

He justified it after the day's play on Twitter: "Just want to apologise for not walking off the ground tonight when I hit the ball. I was just so disappointed, my emotions got best of me."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/cricket/international/theashes/8183479/The-Ashes-2010-Australias-Michael-Clarke-apologises-for-not-walking-after-dismissal-by-Englands-Kevin-Pietersen.html

I guess StuBro was probably just really disappointed today.

Clarke was clearly emotional and tired.